Jump to content

[OpNet] A Response for TimeSlip


Recommended Posts

First off, I would like to state that I find TimeSlip intelligent and creative. I hope she sticks around.

Originally posted by Timeslip:


Try reading.

Okay, I did. ,,
Originally posted by Timeslip:

Go find out about the degenerative problems with the Y-chromosome, how it is losing viability at an accelerated pace. The end of the male is going to happen; the only question is when. That's not a biased or evil or good or gloating statement, it's a statement of fact.

Theory, not fact.

Okay, I take it you are talking about the Sykes Study, or Jones’ work?

Sykes estimates that about a quarter of today's male infertility is caused by this process of decay, and estimates that in about 125,000 years 99% of human males will be infertile.

Do you really understand what bad science that is? For instance, it assumes several things.

One, that the Y-Chromosome had a plethora of genes at some far earlier period. There is no proof of this, just supposition.

Second, while the Y-C does degrade over its life inside one’s body, there is no data to show that it degrades over generations. Quite the opposite, as Y-C mapping is used to trace genealogy over a thousand years of population drift.

It claims that the human male alone will die out in 100K to 200K years. Not the male of any other mammalian species, just homo sapiens sapiens. And, it blames man-made factors, such as pollution, for this very selective decay. How come the rats, cats, and dogs are immune?

Thirdly, it bases its theory on the “fact” that the human male gene has run its course over our less than a million years of existence, while the male genes of other species, which have been around far longer than any homo-species, are doing just fine. What’s up with that? We all pass on our genes the same way, yet it is only the human male gene that is failing.


This is bad science.

Then, the theory drifts off into all the possibilities of an all-female existence, where artificial insemination is handled by taking genetic material from other eggs, which also insures that only women exist. Nice fantasy, but I kinda found an agenda here.

This is a case of having a theory, then looking for evidence to support it. This is not the way to learn how the world works.

Originally posted by Timeslip:

While you are at it, go research the violent tendancies that come part and parcel with said Y-chromosome. Again, this is a statement of fact, not one of hatred.

Again, not FACT, but, in this case, Social Science Theory.

Now, you do get a bit more evidence to go with this one, but it is neither universally accepted or definitely proven.

Start with this.

Most evidence supporting that male violence is a social ill comes from criminal records built up over a hundred years. This evidence would also go on to prove that various social minorities are more prone to violence than the social majority.

Ever wonder why that is?

I have some anctedotal evidence for you.

First off, in North Carolina a woman got away with murdering three of her husbands over a period of fifteen years.

When asked why he had failed to discover the fact that her perfectly healthy husband had sickened and died in such a short time from arsenic poisoning, the homicide detective replied,

"Cold-blooded murder? But women don't do that."

Ty Cobb's mother sat in her bedroom, in the dark, by the window with a loaded shotgun and when her abusive husband came into the second story window trying to catch her in infidelity, she gave him both barrels. Was she convicted of murder? Of course not. This was 1890's Georgia, and women don't murder thier husbands, any more than husbands go to jail for beating their wives.

In LA, women don't form street gangs, or so the LAPD thought throughout the '70's and 80's. Those girls, hanging around in groups on the street corners, selling drugs and shooting their girl and guy rivals, were just girls hanging out.

Little kids play rough, but they don't murder each other. They may push someone thirty feet out of a tree, but that's just rough housing gone horribly wrong.

Girls who play boy games are called Tomboys and they will "grow out of it".

Getting the idea here?

Society operates on a variety of social norms, and in the past, we looked at age and gender crimes differently.

We used to never investigate Crib death, until we were overwhelmed with a rash of mothers killing their children. Suddenly, we had a problem with post-pordem depression.

In the last two decades of the twentieth century, we had an explosion of female criminals committing henious deeds.

In the US, there was an explosion of black on black violence. An explosion of spousal abuse, child abuse, and date-rape.

We only discovered the existance of serial killers in the past 75 years or so.

We still have problems getting anyone to understand how a wife can abuse her husband, but we are working on it.

Did the world change so drastically? Or, did our perceptions of the world change.

Now, we ask the police to take seriously a woman's claim that a drink and dinner does not equal consensual sex.

We ask police to go into homes when Bobby and Susie come to school with welts across their backs.

Now, back to the male violence thing.

What you have asked is a question, not a fact.

Are men extrodinarily violent?

Is society as a whole too violent?

Yes, men are violent. They are also kind, compassionate, creative, and caring. But, do they have a problem with being too aggressive?

Here is a little genetic math for you:

You have 10K men and 10K women. If you lose 9K men, your population is still genetically viable. If you lose 9K women, you are doomed. Your population isn't genetically diverse enough.

The answer to this is that genetically, it is better to risk your males than your females. Thus, you have your males doing the most dangerous tasks, which requires a deal of aggression (to conquer your basic fear about doing anything dangerous). So your average male TENDS to be more aggressive female, for the good of the species.

So men are aggressive, but this does not directly channel itself into violence. Violence results from a variety of factors and aggression is only one of them. The Human Animal commits violence for a variety of reasons ranging from fear, hatred, greed, and even love to things like chemical imbalance, psychological aberration, and social maladjustment.

An interesting sidenote to this is the Social Theory that men, being more accustomed to aggression, are also better at sublimating it so that they can work in social units, such as sports teams, hunting parties, and work crews.

Another Social Theory is that with the advent of feminism, women have placed themselves in a advesarial role AGAINST men. Men, being conditioned to focus their aggression against other men in mutually understandable conflicts, have not adjusted to this well, and women have not adjusted to the social cues inherent in the male vs. male aggression they are stepping in to.

Originally posted by Timeslip:

At no point did I state that men are the "one cog in the social-economic structure...responsible for all the ills." There are many factors that plague mankind, baseline and nova alike. The problematic behavior of men as a whole is, however, one of those factors.

At what point do you think the family social unit broke down? You know, the one that had men and women working in partnership to ensure their own survival and that of their offspring.,,
Originally posted by Timeslip:

As I noted in the other thread, I do not hate men. I know many that I rather like, and indeed one that I love. But that changes the facts no more than an autophile's love for a 1950s Chevrolet will change the fact that the 6-cylinder 235 engine burns oil. As a whole, men (1) have a violence problem and (2) have declining genetic viability, and plans need to be made to deal with both of these factual issues.

Well, since neither one of these are "factual issues", there are going to be alot of problems for you.

My pet theory for Western Europeans is that our, and by that I mean men and women - I don't seperate the species, problems began with the Industrial Revolution and the break up of the Extended Family/Clan structure. As men went off to work and child-rearing became woman's work, certain aspects of a shared existance were lost. The husband-wife relationship frayed and cracked. Women began losing an "obvious" contribution to the family unit as they lost the art of homecrafting and gardening. The men lost contact with their families and their families struggles as they became the sole "provider".

The sexes drifted apart. Women resented their lost economic opportunity and the outlet it had provided. Men resented the burden of providership and the lack of comfort that came from a shared household.

Finally, we got to that aberration called the nuclear family. Women were expected to do nothing more than stay at home (alone) and raise a family. Everyone forgot that in 1500 women provided around half the GNP of Europe in crafts and trade. They had been reduced to spenders of someone elses money.

Men had to get married, work forty plus years outside the home, and get married so they could have kids they rarely saw. What they did see was a tired wife who was unhappy with her circumstances. Here he is working his ass off in an unfullfilling career and she is complaining about how unhappy she is?

Get the picture?

In my theory, the answer is not diviseness, but communication and cooperation. To get back to the social unit we once had, where the male is relieved to not be the only means of support and the woman is not competing with the man, but working toward a mutual beneficial future.

Anyone who wants to, ya'll can get to bustin on me now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like to add ramble ramble Whip tail lizards. ranty ranty Isolated populations of minnows in ponds in Trinidad. personal anecdote Feminist elephants. bizarre unfounded hypothesis Hey maybe Neanderthals had matriachal societies? tried and tested genetic arguement Main benefits of sexual reproduction seem to be in fighting off parasites and disease. Makes sense that one half makes immobile eggs that call out and the other makes mobile sperm that seek well, two even sex cells might have trouble finding each other in a multicellular organism. Any potential for male expolitation counterbalanced by female sexual selection makes sense that males compete for the privilege. counter arguement Bacteria total digression What the hell did I do that flaming sword? Anyone seen it? You have no IDEA who I had to do to get that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Timeslip, you should look into the studies on the theory that the human gene pool is shrinking at an alarming rate,and that within tens of thousands of years, there will not be a large enough gene pool to have humans who are right capable of breading.

So if those studies are 125,000 years,there will be no males left. There will be no female left either. But you will be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walka ... I gotchya flamen sward right herha!

Dreamer, the thing is we are talking aobut the extinction of all mammalian life (which has somehow survived 80+ million years), not just humanity and us (their most successful offshoot to date). And the punch line is we don't have to wait for that killer meteorite. We are going to die a slow death of genetic entropy. How sad is that?

At least we can predict it down to a set period of 100,000 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Timeslip:
Good grief, Jager, you're still going on about this? Get a life.
TimeSlip, I have a life, and an aspect of that life it to make people question the world around them. I don't do this as an amusement. I don't ask them to change their views, but to examining them from time to time would be nice.

This is apparently a concept you can't grasp.

In the future I would appreciate it if you separated your theories, opinions, and facts into their appropriate categories.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jager, if you feel the need to read into my statement more than I've written, feel free. If you further feel the need to express having done so, go right ahead; it helps others to correctly identify you as an idiot.

By the way, a helpful hint for you: the plural of anecdote is not data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you afraid to discuss points you, yourself, have brought up?

Here is a helpful hint for you: if you bring up viewpoints, expect that they will be discussed and in some cases refuted.

Now, if you are going to simply never bring up your viewpoints on genetic degeneration and male violence, this discussion (such as it was) is over. If you plan to keep running down that road, on the other hand, you can also expect me to be there refuting you.

Anecdotal would be something like "I heard", or "In my experience."

Data would be things like A Study of Californian Penal Populations 1980-2000, the UCLA Study: The LAPD and Gender Crime, or Y-Chromosome Research in the Collection of Genealogy Data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...